Navigating Practice Issues Related to the Unsatisfactory Cervicovaginal Papanicolaou Test: Survey Results of Laboratories Participating in the 2020 College of American Pathologists PAP Education Program. Academic Article uri icon

Overview

abstract

  • CONTEXT.—: Unsatisfactory Papanicolaou (Pap) tests pose a unique set of challenges to the laboratory with regard to their processing, review, reporting, and performance of human papillomavirus (HPV) testing. There are no standardized guidelines for the review process and handling of unsatisfactory Pap tests. OBJECTIVE.—: To assess the current practice patterns regarding various aspects of the unsatisfactory Pap test, from processing to reporting, across laboratories worldwide. DESIGN.—: A supplemental questionnaire was mailed to laboratories participating in the 2020 College of American Pathologists (CAP) Gynecologic Cytopathology (PAP Education) Program, requesting data regarding the unsatisfactory Pap test. RESULTS.—: Of 1520 participating laboratories, 619 (40.7%) responded, and the responses of 577 laboratories were included for further analysis. Only 64.6% (373 of 577) laboratories used the unsatisfactory Pap test criteria as specified by the 2014 Bethesda System. About three-quarters of the respondents (433 of 576; 75.2%) routinely rescreened unsatisfactory Pap tests. Routine repreparation of such Pap tests was performed by 54.9% (316 of 576) of laboratories, and 52.0% (293 of 563) used glacial acetic acid for repreparing excessively bloody specimens. HPV test results were reported for unsatisfactory Pap tests, always or sometimes, by 62.4% (353 of 566) of respondents. CONCLUSIONS.—: This CAP survey reveals important information regarding the practice patterns pertaining to several aspects of the unsatisfactory Pap test. It also provides valuable insight into the quality assurance measures that can be implemented for such tests. Future studies can further aid in the standardization of all components of the handling of unsatisfactory Pap tests for overall quality improvement.

authors

  • Goyal, Abha
  • Booth, Christine N
  • Souers, Rhona J
  • Tabbara, Sana O
  • Roberson, Janie
  • Henry, Michael R
  • Sundling, Kaitlin E
  • Goodrich, Kelly
  • Nguyen, Lananh

publication date

  • April 20, 2023

Identity

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

  • 10.5858/arpa.2022-0330-CP

PubMed ID

  • 37074866